If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

North Indian Muslims look mostly like Upper Caste Hindus. This shows mostly upper caste were converted in North India.

South Indian Muslims generally tend to look like Oppressed Class people like Dalits, Other Backward Castes, Dhobis etc.

To me, South Indian Muslims converted to escape Caste discrimination.
North Indian Muslims were either forced to convert or were given a ton of incentives by the Mughals and other Central Asian/Arab/Turk conquerors to accept Islam.

In North India you can see below..
There are Hindu Boras and Muslim Boras. Hindu Jats and Muslim Jats. Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs. Hindu Khatris and Muslim Khatris. Hindu Gujjars and Muslim Gujjars. Hindu Brahmins and Muslim Brahmins (**Cough** Syed **Cough**)......

In South India, you do not see any such thing. Most South Muslims cannot trace what caste their ancestors were. They completely left it generations ago. Most don't even want to talk about it. Barring a few Ashraf Muslims and their converted North Indian army, most South Muslims are sons of the southern soil.

isnt their a whole aryan invasion theory as to why south is darker and north is lighter skinned?

There are theories going around in India that the most weak hearted Hindus converted to Islam to save their lives (this understandibly hurts the “sher dil” image of most Pakistanis, especially Punjabis). Another one is that the most greedy Hindus converted to Christianity for short term monetary gains/food supply. Ultimately, left are the fearless ones with strong principals, much like the Rajputs of Padmavat.

There are theories going around in India that the most weak hearted Hindus converted to Islam to save their lives (this understandibly hurts the “sher dil” image of most Pakistanis, especially Punjabis). Another one is that the most greedy Hindus converted to Christianity for short term monetary gains/food supply. Ultimately, left are the fearless ones with strong principals, much like the Rajputs of Padmavat.

lot of people who are bullied or persecuted find solace in such thinking. You cant fault people for clinging to what helps them sleep at night

There are theories going around in India that the most weak hearted Hindus converted to Islam to save their lives (this understandibly hurts the “sher dil” image of most Pakistanis, especially Punjabis). Another one is that the most greedy Hindus converted to Christianity for short term monetary gains/food supply. Ultimately, left are the fearless ones with strong principals, much like the Rajputs of Padmavat.

Does that mean that it's the weak hearted Hindus who emigrate to the west as well presumably? Most of them convert fairly easily away from Hinduism, and you would presume they would leaving India for monetary gain above much else.

(1) The Big Majority of the people were "uneducated" and they were not attached to the religion.
Rather, they were more attached to the "King" and the "Political Situation".

(2) For example, when Ashoka converted to Buddhism, then all the kingdom followed him. Otherwise, Buddha got only few students during his time as his followers.

(3) Similarly, one part of the Mangools (Qublai Khan) accepted Islam due to the Political Reasons while he wanted the support of the Muslim States against the rival Mangool States who were supported by the Christian countries.
When Qublai Khan became Muslim, then people of his state also followed him and became Muslims.

(4) According to the Quran there were many Prophets who preached, but not more than handful of people believed in them.
So much so that people killed those Rasools and Payghambars (according to the testimony of Quran).

It happened while those prophets got No political power.

(5) And then there were Prophets with the Political powers like David (Daud) and Solomon who got the big States and they converted millions of people towards Judaism.

(6) Prophet Muhammad preached for 13 years in Mecca, but no more than handful people believe in him.
Then he went to Madina and numbers of Muslim still stayed very low.

It was only after the battle of Trench that Muslims got the Political Power and people started accepting Islam.

Till 8th Hijri (before victory of Mecca), the numbers of Muslims was perhaps about 1 to 2 thousands. But after that Muslims became much more stronger and people of Arabia started converting to Islam in droves. Within next 4-5 years, there were more than 100,000 people who became Muslim.

This didn't happen due to Tableegh (i.e. preaching), but it was due to the Political Power of the Muslims.

lot of people who are bullied or persecuted find solace in such thinking. You cant fault people for clinging to what helps them sleep at night

Imo, the theory stating non-coerced conversion is another coping mechanism that helps people sleep at night. Now it doesn't mean that people would have been killed for not accepting Islam, but the choice would have certainly made their life easier or more difficult.

(1) The Big Majority of the people were "uneducated" and they were not attached to the religion.
Rather, they were more attached to the "King" and the "Political Situation".

(2) For example, when Ashoka converted to Buddhism, then all the kingdom followed him. Otherwise, Buddha got only few students during his time as his followers.

(3) Similarly, one part of the Mangools (Qublai Khan) accepted Islam due to the Political Reasons while he wanted the support of the Muslim States against the rival Mangool States who were supported by the Christian countries.
When Qublai Khan became Muslim, then people of his state also followed him and became Muslims.

(4) According to the Quran there were many Prophets who preached, but not more than handful of people believed in them.
So much so that people killed those Rasools and Payghambars (according to the testimony of Quran).

It happened while those prophets got No political power.

(5) And then there were Prophets with the Political powers like David (Daud) and Solomon who got the big States and they converted millions of people towards Judaism.

(6) Prophet Muhammad preached for 13 years in Mecca, but no more than handful people believe in him.
Then he went to Madina and numbers of Muslim still stayed very low.

It was only after the battle of Trench that Muslims got the Political Power and people started accepting Islam.

Till 8th Hijri (before victory of Mecca), the numbers of Muslims was perhaps about 1 to 2 thousands. But after that Muslims became much more stronger and people of Arabia started converting to Islam in droves. Within next 4-5 years, there were more than 100,000 people who became Muslim.

This didn't happen due to Tableegh (i.e. preaching), but it was due to the Political Power of the Muslims.

Your first few points are pure conjecture and gross generalization. In that you have failed to understand the then prevailing circumstances and the build of societies which you are using as example.

The rest of it is same for almost every religion. It takes a lot of factors (social, political, missionary, economic, demographic, cultural etc) AND time for a religion to grow in numbers. Isolating one factor from others and making an exaggerated use of it depicts bias which your post is unfortunately full of.

When you keep doing it for decades and centuries it becomes part of your life.

Though not everyone was forcefully converted.

Take the example of North India from ghaznavi to aurangzeb this region was ruled by various muslim kings, if every decade people are being forced to convert why did the region only become muslim majority during British rule we are talking 800 years here or more.

Anyway to my Pakistani brothers - What's done is done and there's no point incessantly arguing about something that happened over a thousand years ago. Muslims Hindus we are all same people (Yes we are @Slog) and therefore should come to peace on this subject. But the reason why Indians got so defensive here was because of people like KKWC who called Hindus subservient and weak race. Claims such as these are the reason why there exists so much enmity between the two groups.
My message - Just live and let live.
Peace out.

Take the example of North India from ghaznavi to aurangzeb this region was ruled by various muslim kings, if every decade people are being forced to convert why did the region only become muslim majority during British rule we are talking 800 years here or more.

While I appreciate how Muslims today thank their ancestors for converting, that shouldn't come at a cost of distorting the facts. I think it is quite naive to believe that the majority can abandon their religion non-coerced.

Throughout the Mughal dynasty, Hindus who converted to Islam found life easier. There are countless records of Hindus migrating to friendlier places in order to avoid conversion. A lot of times, the option indeed was to convert or die.

Anyway to my Pakistani brothers - What's done is done and there's no point incessantly arguing about something that happened over a thousand years ago. Muslims Hindus we are all same people (Yes we are @Slog) and therefore should come to peace on this subject. But the reason why Indians got so defensive here was because of people like KKWC who called Hindus subservient and weak race. Claims such as these are the reason why there exists so much enmity between the two groups.
My message - Just live and let live.
Peace out.

I think KKWC was making such claims based upon present day Indians who generally live, or aspire to live in the west, and are often at the forefront of calls for Pakistanis and Muslims to abandon their faith and culture and integrate better like the Indians do when they move to the west. KKWC is UK based and our understanding of Indians is often formed by what we see of Indians over here, and some who parrot the same message on forums like this one.

The stories about Indian history and conquest are still always fascinating though, so at least we get to see a broader picture, along with a lot of determined Islamic scripture provided by Alam Dar with his Pakistani flag.

I think KKWC was making such claims based upon present day Indians who generally live, or aspire to live in the west, and are often at the forefront of calls for Pakistanis and Muslims to abandon their faith and culture and integrate better like the Indians do when they move to the west. KKWC is UK based and our understanding of Indians is often formed by what we see of Indians over here, and some who parrot the same message on forums like this one.

The stories about Indian history and conquest are still always fascinating though, so at least we get to see a broader picture, along with a lot of determined Islamic scripture provided by Alam Dar with his Pakistani flag.

I just hope no Sikh brother gave you hard time about this in High School. They could be pretty defensive at times

I just hope no Sikh brother gave you hard time about this in High School. They could be pretty defensive at times

One of my closer friends was a Sikh for the last couple of years in high school, he did okay to keep his feelings to himself on these matters mostly. But he was actually a turban wearing Sikh, it might just be my experience, but the Sikh brothers who don't follow their codes usually bark the loudest.

Anyway to my Pakistani brothers - What's done is done and there's no point incessantly arguing about something that happened over a thousand years ago. Muslims Hindus we are all same people (Yes we are @Slog) and therefore should come to peace on this subject. But the reason why Indians got so defensive here was because of people like KKWC who called Hindus subservient and weak race. Claims such as these are the reason why there exists so much enmity between the two groups.
My message - Just live and let live.
Peace out.

May be he will like to name the places or regions around the world which were conquered by Muslim invaders, yet the majority of population kept their original religion and culture. That will tell him about who put up a resistance who didnot.

Syria. It took 500 years for that country to become a majority Muslim nation. An contrary to popular Indian belief India remained a majority Non Muslim country right up until independance. Yes rulers from afghanistan weren't exactly paragons of virtue but to say mass numbers of Hindus were forced to convert is not entirely true. A large swathe of India actually converted to Islam after the time of the ghaznavids. But many did not and retained their older ways and do to this day.

Other countries that remained largely non muslim are transoxiana, afghanistan (yes they did not convert to Islam after the first arab incursions and actually many reverted back to buddhism and other faiths later).

The large bulk of Muslim conversions of many people happened after 1300 in what we can call the Muslim south. So your looking at west africa, malaysia, indonesia, central africa and even parts of north africa. Forced conversion is explicitly forbidden in Islam that is why the original conquests did not force anybody to convert. 300-400 years later you got rulers like Mahmud of ghazni who were from central asia and were not really paragons of Islamic scholarship. You had Timur who was a tyrant and you also had other rulers like Akbar who was not. You had the rulers of Sicily and the ummayads in Spain who did not forceably convert their subjects. The Ayubids were also not prone to such behaviour. Neither were those who lived in west africa like Mansa Musa (the richest man who ever lived).

swathes of India were converted by sufi saints and others converted for economic benefits. And yes you had forceable conversions but many of these converted back too. Its a mixed bag and its wrong to portray Islam in India and the rest of the world as a belligerent Borg type entity. It just wasn't the case...

It's a coping mechanism. There are some strange posts in this thread about how Afghanistan and Punjab were repeatedly conquered, forcefully converted and raped willingly, then this idea that Islam took root by force except for the magnificent Hindus of certain regions which resisted nobly and heroically like in a Bollywood film. Except in Bollywood films the heroes are too often Afghans and Punjabis which is another lie forced on the masses no doubt.

I think we should just agree, don't want to hurt any more feelings than necessary.

Exactly. This thread is a great insight of the mindset of some of our neighbors.

Many invaders/people who came to subcontinent got assimilated into the Hindu fold and caste system.

To me, Islam not only kept its faith, but never allowed Dharma to affect its teachings. Islam managed to convert almost 50% of the population and took a good chuck of land from subcontinent in Pak and Bangladesh. I am sometimes in awe of Islam as to what makes it so different from other religions and beliefs.

No Turk or Arab or Central Asian ever got swayed by Hinduism or Buddhism. The rulers kept their faith and also managed to convert masses by whatever means was applicable.

A lot of the tension that exists between my Muslim family and me wouldn't. My decision not to have children is influenced heavily by the fact that my family, and especially my extended family would expect them raised as Muslim, something that is unacceptable to me, and I can imagine what would happen if my 8 year old tells his great grandmother or grandmother or any member of my family that daddy told him there's no god. I will be instantly disowned by the only people I've known and loved. Things are already tense between my mother, who knows, and I because of this. This is not as much of an issue with other religions in my experience.

Many invaders/people who came to subcontinent got assimilated into the Hindu fold and caste system.

To me, Islam not only kept its faith, but never allowed Dharma to affect its teachings. Islam managed to convert almost 50% of the population and took a good chuck of land from subcontinent in Pak and Bangladesh. I am sometimes in awe of Islam as to what makes it so different from other religions and beliefs.

No Turk or Arab or Central Asian ever got swayed by Hinduism or Buddhism. The rulers kept their faith and also managed to convert masses by whatever means was applicable.

Because Hinduism, Buddhism etc. are created by settled civilizations that seek to propagate wealth and harmony.
Islam was created by a similar war-like and largely uncivilized semi-nomadic societies akin to the Turks & Central Asians. Hence the appeal via similar lifestyles.

Same reason why Islam was an abject failure in China but Buddhism succeeded. Or why Hindu concepts like Yoga, Karma, etc are freely adopted by westerners but hardly anything Islamic gets adopted.

As for Dharma not affecting Islam- that's the basis of Sufi-ism is fusion of dharmic concepts with Islam.

Because Hinduism, Buddhism etc. are created by settled civilizations that seek to propagate wealth and harmony.
Islam was created by a similar war-like and largely uncivilized semi-nomadic societies akin to the Turks & Central Asians. Hence the appeal via similar lifestyles.

Same reason why Islam was an abject failure in China but Buddhism succeeded. Or why Hindu concepts like Yoga, Karma, etc are freely adopted by westerners but hardly anything Islamic gets adopted.

As for Dharma not affecting Islam- that's the basis of Sufi-ism is fusion of dharmic concepts with Islam.

Agreed with your first 2 paragraphs. Settled civilizations do not care about propogating faith. Probably conntent with whatever they got and concentrated on Arts and literature.

I read in a thread here that Sufis existed during the time of Prophet too. So not sure if Dharmic religions had any influence on it. I may be completely wrong here.

A lot of the tension that exists between my Muslim family and me wouldn't. My decision not to have children is influenced heavily by the fact that my family, and especially my extended family would expect them raised as Muslim, something that is unacceptable to me, and I can imagine what would happen if my 8 year old tells his great grandmother or grandmother or any member of my family that daddy told him there's no god. I will be instantly disowned by the only people I've known and loved. Things are already tense between my mother, who knows, and I because of this. This is not as much of an issue with other religions in my experience.

Brother, go with a kid and have no fear.

I am sure the table is turning. Till the time you get a kid, and that kid becomes 10 years old, I think Atheism would have become at least some Norm for Muslim families too.

Really, atheism is spreading with a lot of speed.

Secondly, you need not to tell the kid about god or no god. Just teach the kid about Humanity and loving all as much as possible. After that even if the kid goes to the Madrassa, still no problem and the kid will get the right path sooner or later.

Please don't get afraid of having kids due to the social problems. Your kid will belong to you, and not to Islam.

Because Hinduism, Buddhism etc. are created by settled civilizations that seek to propagate wealth and harmony.
Islam was created by a similar war-like and largely uncivilized semi-nomadic societies akin to the Turks & Central Asians. Hence the appeal via similar lifestyles.

Same reason why Islam was an abject failure in China but Buddhism succeeded. Or why Hindu concepts like Yoga, Karma, etc are freely adopted by westerners but hardly anything Islamic gets adopted.

As for Dharma not affecting Islam- that's the basis of Sufi-ism is fusion of dharmic concepts with Islam.

Well it's a matter of perception. War is universal and west has adopted it as much as east has if that is the correct term. You yourself were using war-like language in defense of Hindu kingdoms and to take pride in some regions remaining unconquered as compared to others. So seems to me you are adopting lots of Islamic traits even if the west isn't.

Take the example of North India from ghaznavi to aurangzeb this region was ruled by various muslim kings, if every decade people are being forced to convert why did the region only become muslim majority during British rule we are talking 800 years here or more.

1. The areas that are Pakistan are Pakistan because during partition those areas were found to be muslim majority.

2. Muslims except the Mughals didnot have a peaceful total control of north india. There were continous struggles.

3. Till Ghori came and defeated Chauhans the muslim rulers had not established a dynasty in present day northern India. So its not 800yrs.

4. All of present day Pakistan and Afghanistan was hindu or buddhist but since muslims ruled there for a much longer time and since they were away from the heart of hindu religion across indus, those areas became muslims.

5. In those days the loyalty of people was with their kings, some of the kings like Janjuas rajputs or Ghorewahas converted with almost the entire clan while others resisted.

6. If you start going from south bengal and then more south you will find the muslim population decreasing except Kerala and Hyderabad. Thats because these areas were in constant struggle with the muslim rulers.

Anyway to my Pakistani brothers - What's done is done and there's no point incessantly arguing about something that happened over a thousand years ago. Muslims Hindus we are all same people (Yes we are @Slog) and therefore should come to peace on this subject. But the reason why Indians got so defensive here was because of people like KKWC who called Hindus subservient and weak race. Claims such as these are the reason why there exists so much enmity between the two groups.
My message - Just live and let live.
Peace out.

1. The areas that are Pakistan are Pakistan because during partition those areas were found to be muslim majority.

2. Muslims except the Mughals didnot have a peaceful total control of north india. There were continous struggles.

3. Till Ghori came and defeated Chauhans the muslim rulers had not established a dynasty in present day northern India. So its not 800yrs.

4. All of present day Pakistan and Afghanistan was hindu or buddhist but since muslims ruled there for a much longer time and since they were away from the heart of hindu religion across indus, those areas became muslims.

5. In those days the loyalty of people was with their kings, some of the kings like Janjuas rajputs or Ghorewahas converted with almost the entire clan while others resisted.

6. If you start going from south bengal and then more south you will find the muslim population decreasing except Kerala and Hyderabad. Thats because these areas were in constant struggle with the muslim rulers.

You originally said that people were forcefully converted every few decades or centuries, that is why they remained muslim.

Muslim rulers may not have had stable rule in all of north india but they did have stable rule in the area that compromised British punjab( Delhi, both punjabs, haryana) yet it took the muslims until 20th century to become majority in this region and this is after muslim rule had ended here with abdali back in the 1790s so inbetween you had 50 years of Sikh rule than later British rule.

From wiki : The Punjab was a religiously eclectic province, comprising Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians. In 1881, the two largest religious groups were Muslims (47.6%) and Hindus (43.8%). By 1941, the religious composition had evolved, with Muslims constituting an absolute majority at 53.2%, whilst the Hindu population had fallen to 29.1%. The decrease in the Hindu population has been attributed to the conversion of a number of lower caste Hindus to Islam, Sikhism and Christianity. The period between 1881 and 1941 saw a significant increase in the Sikh and Christian populations, growing from 8.2% and 0.1% to 14.9% and 1.9% respectively.

You're wrong about that, Musakhelvi. Pakistan was home to many Buddhists, they all converted to Islam by choice.

Still hard to believe. I mean there were as many Buddhists in Pakistan as Hindus when Arabs showed up there.

How can all of them convert when Hindus still remain? There are still Hindu Dalits in Pakistan to this day. When Dalits who should be the first ones to jump up and accept Islam remain and Buddhists(No caste system) converted, I find it very bizarre.

How come the oppressed Dalits still be Hindu today and the Buddhists convert in thousands and lakhs? Something does not add up here. Why would anyone want to escape Buddhism?

Hindutva : An ideology seeking to establish the hegemony of Hindus and the Hindu way of life. Literal translation, Hinduism.

The reason why such an ideology was created was to protect Hinduism and the Hindu lifestyle. This is a fact. Why create such an ideology if one is dominant?

When people talk about choice and superiority, my personal opinion is that Hindus have no right to ask such questions. Why? One should let the record reflect, and understand that in Hinduism there is no choice, and nothing but self-superiority and enforcement. Still sound confused by what I mean? Well, ok, let me spell it out to you, The Caste System.

A Hindu born into a caste has no choice, even during life. The caste one is born into is forced upon them, and depending on which caste one is forced into, one is either superior or inferior.

So whether one converted to a different faith through choice, war, or even necessity, it doesn’t hold a candle to the Caste system that plagues India.

To add, this is why Pakistan is ahead of India. In Pakistan, meritocracy holds more value, provides more opportunity, where as in India, once you are born into a caste, that's it, your destiny is written, you have no choice. The difference? The major religions practised in both countries.

Such that, if you are a Brahmin, the sky is your limit, if you are a Dalit, you ain't getting off the ground. There is no choice no matter what you do. Either you are superior in India, or you are not. This bodes into the inferiority complex.

Those who may have been forcefully converted have long died out centuries back. Today India and it's Hindu's are free to "reconvert" all it's Muslim's to Hinduism so why don't they? This is strange that Hindu's in India seem to be forcing the Muslim's to convert to Hinduism by telling them they were forced in to Islam Not saying that Muslim invaders were saint's or anything but Hindu's just need to get over it now. Muslim's of their country are believers in Islam because they want to be.

PP's own self proclaimed sharpshooter and defender of Islam and Pakistan.

A lot of the tension that exists between my Muslim family and me wouldn't. My decision not to have children is influenced heavily by the fact that my family, and especially my extended family would expect them raised as Muslim, something that is unacceptable to me, and I can imagine what would happen if my 8 year old tells his great grandmother or grandmother or any member of my family that daddy told him there's no god. I will be instantly disowned by the only people I've known and loved. Things are already tense between my mother, who knows, and I because of this. This is not as much of an issue with other religions in my experience.

I have Much respect for you! But you really should be careful since the society you live in is not very tolerant. Good luck.

I openly admit that I have little knowledge and initially I also got knowledge by reading different websites. But then I went further and researched all this material for "many years" and cross checked the references from Quran and other Muslim books.

Therefore, it is not necessary who is saying, but it is important what is said. Please cross check the arguments as I did for years, and only then come to any conclusion.

Indeed I provided above the Verses of Quran, along with their Tafsir by the Grand Salafi Mufties of Saudi Arabia, who giving further references to the Imams and lot of Ahadith.

I also provided directly the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir too who is quoting the Quranic Verses himself.

Therefore, I request you to please not to blame me for not providing the direct references from Quran and Ahadith.

Sir, please do your research complete before making such statement.

The verse of sword (Surah 9, verse 5) was revealed only at the end of the Meccan period (i.e. end of the 9th Hijri). This Surah was the last which was revealed upon the Prophet.

At this time (9th Hijri), there were no idolaters/tribes left who were strong enough to fight against the Muslims.

Please read the Surah and Verse, which are clear that even if there are pacts with the Kuffar, even then they were given the time of 4 months after which those pacts would have become annulled, and Kuffar would have been killed wherever they would have been found. (Note: Pacts already mean that Kuffar were no more fighting against the Muslims, but even then their pacts were annulled).

It is not me, but there is IJMA of all Muslims who are saying the same thing. Only difference is this that Imam Abu Hanifa later changed the rule and started accepting Jizya from the idolaters too, while other Imams criticized him for using Qiyyas against the Ijma of the Sahaba.

I would again ask you to please read what Salafi Mufties are writing from Quran and Ahadith, and then tell me what wrong have I said, and where is your own proof from Quran and Hadith?

I have read it.
It does not cover the discussion which we have here, but it is only talking of not killing of the "women and the children", but to make them the slaves for whole of their life, even if they have no part in any war against the Muslims.

I think it would be best for everyone if you'd stop using salafi sources.

Everyone knows Salafis themselves didn't exist till the late 19th century so it is not credible to quote from them.

And please stop promoting Islam as a religion that either forcibly converts or kills.

I have complete disagreement with whatever you've posted regarding the killing of idolaters and not taking jizya from them.

To add, this is why Pakistan is ahead of India. In Pakistan, meritocracy holds more value, provides more opportunity, where as in India, once you are born into a caste, that's it, your destiny is written, you have no choice. The difference? The major religions practised in both countries.

Such that, if you are a Brahmin, the sky is your limit, if you are a Dalit, you ain't getting off the ground. There is no choice no matter what you do. Either you are superior in India, or you are not. This bodes into the inferiority complex.

Hahaha sarcasm ?? You know what caste system meant for ? A religion which is oldest in the world. Which gives freedom to all to practice anything and gave many things to the world .Do you think that caste system was meant to discriminate ?? The first thing which invaders do is basically to attack their scriptures and pollute it . Who knows what it actually was .The caste system was meant to be like based on the works or the occupation they do.

If you are brahmin sky is your limit. I knou you guys have been brainwashed to the core to hate ypur ancestral roots. hate your forefathers and all. But in this modern age it takes hardly bit of research to get some common sense or knowledge.
In india i belong to general caste so i have to put 200 percent more hard work to get job or seat in top instititutes in medical or enginerering or govt jobs as compared to low castes. Sky is the limit for low castes in india. They get subsidies ,jobs amd everything based on quotas and if we say them low caste then we can get jailed ....Thery are many general castes like brahmins ,rajputs or khatris who have fake their castes to low castes to get the benifits. I know many of them. you got it ? Go tell something to your brothers which you learnt today. Will teach you more about hinduism ,castes and all. If you get your basics right.
We are also proud our ancestors too who didnt convert and stayed on the path of the truth.

Your first few points are pure conjecture and gross generalization. In that you have failed to understand the then prevailing circumstances and the build of societies which you are using as example.

The rest of it is same for almost every religion. It takes a lot of factors (social, political, missionary, economic, demographic, cultural etc) AND time for a religion to grow in numbers. Isolating one factor from others and making an exaggerated use of it depicts bias which your post is unfortunately full of.

Explain that w.r.t Jainism.

Also there is difference between propagating the message and the one where one has to discover the message.

In cricket, my superhero is Sachin Tendulkar. He has always been my hero.
-Virat Kohli

To add, this is why Pakistan is ahead of India. In Pakistan, meritocracy holds more value, provides more opportunity, where as in India, once you are born into a caste, that's it, your destiny is written, you have no choice. The difference? The major religions practised in both countries.

So a Sikh/Hindu/Christian can become the PM/Prresident in Pakistan? Meritocracy ehhh

To add, this is why Pakistan is ahead of India. In Pakistan, meritocracy holds more value, provides more opportunity, where as in India, once you are born into a caste, that's it, your destiny is written, you have no choice. The difference? The major religions practised in both countries.

Such that, if you are a Brahmin, the sky is your limit, if you are a Dalit, you ain't getting off the ground. There is no choice no matter what you do. Either you are superior in India, or you are not. This bodes into the inferiority complex.

You are somewhat right here caste system is still very much relevant and especially in smaller towns/villages it does have a negative effect..

However now the lower castes or backward castes are given reservations everywhere mostly it’s taken up by economically decent enough people from these castes rather than the extremely poor one who needs them..

At the end of the day India does suffer from caste system in addition to that we suffer from social-economic racism where people belittle the person who is socially weaker than them irrespective of their caste..

Having said all of that in which universe is Pakistan ahead of India? When you start your post with comments like this you make your post sound like troll post and other indian posters will belittle your posts..

On topic grow up and move on no one can prove what happened to your ancestors 500 years ago, Be happy with what you are today live your life and don’t discriminate against anyone or think yourself as superior or inferior to anyone.. End of the day every human is same just do your best in life and enjoy it..

I wonder how many Muslims were appointed prominent/chief/law making/military positions in GOI since BJP were in power.

As for Modi belonging to a low caste, deary me, he had no choice, but then again it could've been worse, he could've been born in Dalit caste. I suppose this why someone speaking to a low caste is a big deal in India. Speaking of which any Dalits in powerful positions I wonder?

Fact remains, caste system is backwards, there is no choice, which is why sense of superiority is rife in India. It's so pertinent that caste based discrimination exists in the UK among Hindus. Thankfully caste based violence hasn't reared it's backside in the UK, yet.

I wonder how many Muslims were appointed prominent/chief/law making/military positions in GOI since BJP were in power.

As for Modi belonging to a low caste, deary me, he had no choice, but then again it could've been worse, he could've been born in Dalit caste. I suppose this why someone speaking to a low caste is a big deal in India. Speaking of which any Dalits in powerful positions I wonder?

Fact remains, caste system is backwards, there is no choice, which is why sense of superiority is rife in India. It's so pertinent that caste based discrimination exists in the UK among Hindus. Thankfully caste based violence hasn't reared it's backside in the UK, yet.

The only feathers that have been ruffled are yours because India has had Muslim Presidents , Sikh Prime Ministers a Christian Defence Minister and too many high ranking Sikhs in Military to remember.

yet large population exist who believe in killing of innocent for just transporting a cow.

I responded to your posts on this topic in the other thread ... harming cows is illegal in India. End of story. If you still want to debate on this topic feel free to respond in that thread and explain how and why Hindus need to shut up and look the other way when Muslims are harming cows.

US had Obama as president but racism is still thriving and kicking in US.

ohh yeah ... maybe Iam living in a different country ... thanks for the reminder

Anyway to my Pakistani brothers - What's done is done and there's no point incessantly arguing about something that happened over a thousand years ago. Muslims Hindus we are all same people (Yes we are @Slog) and therefore should come to peace on this subject. But the reason why Indians got so defensive here was because of people like KKWC who called Hindus subservient and weak race. Claims such as these are the reason why there exists so much enmity between the two groups.
My message - Just live and let live.
Peace out.

Please show me where?

Enmity exists because Hindu extremists such as the BJP cannot get over the past and it seems neither can you. Muslims came, they saw, they ruled. Get over it.

I am not a prophet, and I don't receive revelation. I have to read the books and websites to get knowledge.

Try reading books written by Muslims not be those who hate the faith. Do you enjoy wasting years of your life?

During my research, I didn't trust the non Islamic literature, but I cross checked them and made sure I get the first hand knowledge.

The verse 9:06 was not about the Kuffar who were living in the Islamic State, but it was for the Kuffar who were living in the Non Muslim lands and they come to Islamic State as Messengers of as Traders etc.

The verse talks of a treaty. Common sense would dictate a treaty is in place with those they are fighting not those they have not met. It refers to those in Arabia.

It is unfair of you of blaming me all this.

My references are True and they are from the Muslim Scholars, who themselves quoting Quranic Verses, Ahadith of Prophet, Ijma of Sahaba, the Rulings of earlier Imams.

While the Islam Apologists of today (whom you quote) are dishonest. They hide the real Islamic Rulings.

Because you cant refute the scholars, there are apologists but the hate sites you copy and paste from are written by neutral academics?

Please seek some help, I think you have issues. Do not mention me again, your arguments are too pathetic to waste time with.

Enmity exists because Hindu extremists such as the BJP cannot get over the past and it seems neither can you. Muslims came, they saw, they ruled. Get over it.

Muslims did not come to rule. Mughals and Afghans came to rule over the peoples of India, including the ancestors of 99% of the people currently in the SC.

Even though they were Muslim, they saw your ancestors as a different race, and a people to be exploited. Personally, I don't see anything to celebrate about the pillaging of the country by foreign invaders. Sorry if that goes against the narrative you have been fed.

Muslims did not come to rule. Mughals and Afghans came to rule over the peoples of India, including the ancestors of 99% of the people currently in the SC.

Even though they were Muslim, they saw your ancestors as a different race, and a people to be exploited. Personally, I don't see anything to celebrate about the pillaging of the country by foreign invaders. Sorry if that goes against the narrative you have been fed.

Have you not been reading the thread or the OP? Bottom line I am a Muslim and we are Muslims, this is the best outcome. You feel they pillaged, I feel they enhanced the land and the lives of the people.

Have you not been reading the thread or the OP? Bottom line I am a Muslim and we are Muslims, this is the best outcome. You feel they pillaged, I feel they enhanced the land and the lives of the people.

You call raping , looting and plundering by Ghaznavids and others as enhancing the lives of people? Wow you really are something aren't you

Now you're being emotional, there is no need to get upset and exaggerate.

From my personal experience in the UK, I can assure people dont see Indians here as any great physical specimens or great fighters/warriors. History also shows Indians have been easily conquered.

Have done any research? You never answered my question and instead asked questions yourself. So I ask again.

How can you be sure YOUR ancestors weren't forced to convert to Hinduism? For all we know , mine converted by choice and yours were forced?

Indians in UK are near the top of the median income pyramid while Pakistanis afe near the bottom. Thats govt data and that proves who is doing well. Fighters warriors etc etc Pakistanis are not doing that well.

The present day Pakistan and their residents are the ones who got conquered most number of times. Seems they give up easily.

Have you not been reading the thread or the OP? Bottom line I am a Muslim and we are Muslims, this is the best outcome. You feel they pillaged, I feel they enhanced the land and the lives of the people.

Indians in UK are near the top of the median income pyramid while Pakistanis afe near the bottom. Thats govt data and that proves who is doing well. Fighters warriors etc etc Pakistanis are not doing that well.

The present day Pakistan and their residents are the ones who got conquered most number of times. Seems they give up easily.

Can you tell me which religion was followed in India before hinduism?

They are doing better than nearly a billion Indians but wealth has nothing to do with the point.

Anyway what I'm really really interested in is your personal knowledge of your history and mine. To remind you of the opening post, you stated my anscestors were converted 3000 years ago while your's never were.

Show me some details, anything to show YOUR ancestors WERE NOT forced to convert to Hinduism. Then prove to me mine were forced to convert to Islam. You made a very interesting claim, please tell me how you claim to this conclusion?

You asked for "Prominent government/MIlitary Positions" ... and the President is the No.1 Citizen of India. BTW he is also Commander-In-Chief of Indian Military and has the powers to dissolve Parliament and run the country if the situation calls for it.

You must be living in some seriously cuckoo land if you think Pakistan offers even remotely close Executive power positions to its Minorities ... not in a million years. Bloody hell Captain of Pakistan Cricket team would be a good start ..

Rana Baghwan - (F)Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Superb example of Meritocracy in Pakistan.

Positions held on merit, not luck of the draw/backward caste system.

So the CJI in Pakistan is comparable to President and Defence Ministers of India ....

They are doing better than nearly a billion Indians but wealth has nothing to do with the point.

Anyway what I'm really really interested in is your personal knowledge of your history and mine. To remind you of the opening post, you stated my anscestors were converted 3000 years ago while your's never were.

Show me some details, anything to show YOUR ancestors WERE NOT forced to convert to Hinduism. Then prove to me mine were forced to convert to Islam. You made a very interesting claim, please tell me how you claim to this conclusion?

Hinduism is the oldest religion of all current religions and its origins are in India. Besides there is no "founder" of Hinduism like there is for most other religions.

They are doing better than nearly a billion Indians but wealth has nothing to do with the point.

Anyway what I'm really really interested in is your personal knowledge of your history and mine. To remind you of the opening post, you stated my anscestors were converted 3000 years ago while your's never were.

Show me some details, anything to show YOUR ancestors WERE NOT forced to convert to Hinduism. Then prove to me mine were forced to convert to Islam. You made a very interesting claim, please tell me how you claim to this conclusion?

Compare brit pakistanis with brit indians. What is the problem? Cant compete?

I stated that your ancestors were converted to islam while my followed the same religion for 3000 years. None of that is untrue. Please prove otherwise.

Tell me which religion my ancestors followed 3000 years ago before you claim they were converted.

You asked for "Prominent government/MIlitary Positions" ... and the President is the No.1 Citizen of India. BTW he is also Commander-In-Chief of Indian Military and has the powers to dissolve Parliament and run the country if the situation calls for it.

You must be living in some seriously cuckoo land if you think Pakistan offers even remotely close Executive power positions to its Minorities ... not in a million years. Bloody hell Captain of Pakistan Cricket team would be a good start ..

So the CJI in Pakistan is comparable to President and Defence Ministers of India ....

You asked for "Prominent government/MIlitary Positions" ... and the President is the No.1 Citizen of India. BTW he is also Commander-In-Chief of Indian Military and has the powers to dissolve Parliament and run the country if the situation calls for it.

You must be living in some seriously cuckoo land if you think Pakistan offers even remotely close Executive power positions to its Minorities ... not in a million years. Bloody hell Captain of Pakistan Cricket team would be a good start ..

So the CJI in Pakistan is comparable to President and Defence Ministers of India ....

Have you not been reading the thread or the OP? Bottom line I am a Muslim and we are Muslims, this is the best outcome. You feel they pillaged, I feel they enhanced the land and the lives of the people.

1) Being Muslim is not necessarily the best outcome - you may believe that as a matter of faith, but there are lots of people who will not believe that.

2) It is not black and white, some invaders could be said to have 'enhanced the land', as you put it - some did not. Unfortunately, all invaders who share a particular religion are celebrated as part of the state narrative, regardless of their actions on the local populace - yours and my ancestors included.

3) It would be great if you also explain what you mean by 'enhanced the land'

4) 'Enhancing the land'....does whatever they did to enhance it negate any of their negative effects (if any)?

5) For example, the British invasion of the SC may have 'enhanced' the SC and its culture. I have no doubt that the SC would have held a very different shape had the British not ruled over it. This applies to everything, from geography, language, culture, law, etc. I do not see anyone celebrate their rule. Why celebrate the rule of Mohammed of Ghor...who practically just raped and plundered.

But yes I am proud that my ancestors converted to what I consider the right path.

Mughals and other Muslim empires ruled India for centuries and on multiple occassions. If they wanted they could have systematically reduced the population of Hindus through ethnic cleansing and expulsion over a considerable period of 500 years plus as has happened in many other regions of the world and as recently as 1940s when Germans were expelled from German cities in what is now eastern Europe. If forced conversion was their aim then over a long time period such as that you would have seen the demographics totally flip to favoring Muslims as a majority. Also the growth of mulsim population as a percentage of indian subcontinent would have fallen significantly since fall of Mughal empire and Muslim influence to British colonizers. However that hasnt happened which weakens a fantasy theory of forced mass conversions to Islam

Also finally. I have nothing to do with an Indian Tamil or malayalee or bengali and others who form part of India today. All humans are equal but ethnically we are different. My only relation to them is that the British colonizers deemed it fit to forcibly lump a whole land mass into one region for their own administrative ease. I do not identify with them and have as much in common with them as I do with a Oromo people from Ethiopia.

To end my post I must also point out that the makeup of what forms Pakistan and north India today is very different to 800+ years ago when the invasions first started en masse. The people are not the same and there has been lot of migration in and out as well as mixing of populations.

But yes I am proud that my ancestors converted to what I consider the right path.

Mughals and other Muslim empires ruled India for centuries and on multiple occassions. If they wanted they could have systematically reduced the population of Hindus through ethnic cleansing and expulsion over a considerable period of 500 years plus as has happened in many other regions of the world and as recently as 1940s when Germans were expelled from German cities in what is now eastern Europe. If forced conversion was their aim then over a long time period such as that you would have seen the demographics totally flip to favoring Muslims as a majority. Also the growth of mulsim population as a percentage of indian subcontinent would have fallen significantly since fall of Mughal empire and Muslim influence to British colonizers. However that hasnt happened which weakens a fantasy theory of forced mass conversions to Islam

Also finally. I have nothing to do with an Indian Tamil or malayalee or bengali and others who form part of India today. All humans are equal but ethnically we are different. My only relation to them is that the British colonizers deemed it fit to forcibly lump a whole land mass into one region for their own administrative ease. I do not identify with them and have as much in common with them as I do with a Oromo people from Ethiopia.

To end my post I must also point out that the makeup of what forms Pakistan and north India today is very different to 800+ years ago when the invasions first started en masse. The people are not the same and there has been lot of migration in and out as well as mixing of populations.

There are small communities of malayalee/tamil/bengali/goanese, etc people today in Karachi. In 1947, they believed, and were led to believe that Pakistan was indeed a homeland for them. So you may think you are different from them 'ethnically' but there are some which consider themselves as from the same country as you.

There are probably Indian Muslim's living in UP which have more in common with you. Yet they are technically from a different country. There is a paradox somewhere here right?

Chief Justice of the Supreme court is technically the most powerful in any country for the simple reason he maintains the checks and balances on what Presidents/Prime Minsters do, and in all the land. Hence SUPREME.

It was the Supreme court of Pakistan that disqualified Nawaz Sharif. Let this sink in.

There are small communities of malayalee/tamil/bengali/goanese, etc people today in Karachi. In 1947, they believed, and were led to believe that Pakistan was indeed a homeland for them. So you may think you are different from them 'ethnically' but there are some which consider themselves as from the same country as you.

There are probably Indian Muslim's living in UP which have more in common with you. Yet they are technically from a different country. There is a paradox somewhere here right?

I have been willingly part of the same country as them though so eventually there is a fusion of cultures and greater understanding and cooperation. Which is why with Pakistani Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis etc and groups you mentioned - I do have a lot in common and we form one nationality. Same in case of all the different Indian ethnicities with some exceptions such as Kashmiris perhaps.

Willingly is the key word here. When my ancestors were lumped with people from Tamil Nadu or Chattisgarh - the decision was neither taken with their consent nor did they come to terms with it and accept it in years to come. However when they came to Pakistan they came with their own free will with the intention to be countrymen of the ethnic groups already inhabiting the country. There is no paradox.

I have been willingly part of the same country as them though so eventually there is a fusion of cultures and greater understanding and cooperation. Which is why with Pakistani Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis etc and groups you mentioned - I do have a lot in common and we form one nationality. Same in case of all the different Indian ethnicities with some exceptions such as Kashmiris perhaps.

Willingly is the key word here. When my ancestors were lumped with people from Tamil Nadu or Chattisgarh - the decision was neither taken with their consent nor did they come to terms with it and accept it in years to come. However when they came to Pakistan they came with their own free will with the intention to be countrymen of the ethnic groups already inhabiting the country. There is no paradox.

I would like to correct one thing. The use of the word 'ethnically' is perhaps wrong on my part as it is not putting my point across. There are malayalees living in karachi since before Pakistan as well and I have things in common with them even though are part of the same ethnic group as those in kerala who have nothing to do with Pakistan. However there is assimilation so there is sth common with them. With the latter group there is nothing in common. Same case with Indian Muslims in UP. Every generation we have less and less in common with them and eventually we will not have much in common either despite likely sharing same ethnicity

And I did give you the example of APJ Abdul Kalam. And BTW keep in mind that the BJP has been in power for barely 10% of the 70.5 yrs.

Chief Justice of the Supreme court is technically the most powerful in any country for the simple reason he maintains the checks and balances on what Presidents/Prime Minsters do, and in all the land. Hence SUPREME.

It was the Supreme court of Pakistan that disqualified Nawaz Sharif. Let this sink in.

Is that why Pakistan has been ruled by the Military for decades ... ohh the cheek to say "checks and balances"

Any chance you are going to answer my simple question ? Does Pakistan even officially allow minorities to become the PM/President of the country ?

I dont think you have the guts to answer that simple question because you know what that means. Your best options are to keep shifting the Goal posts lol